Double movement Tries

P

Peaches

New member
I for one can't understand why the game has different rules for different areas of the field. Take tonight for example. Cameron Smith's no-try was a double movement but for my viewing (and my viewing of one trying to remove that grey area in the game), that should be a try. I know the rules don't support that but if you're close enough and able to get the ball on the line, I think it should be a try.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
I just think a slight tweak of the rules, where if you're close enough to score and be desperate and strong enough to score it should be a try, would just take the double movement aspect out of the game and reward players and attacking teams.

Every where else on the field, moving off the mark is a shortened 10 meters.

It's just my opinion to remove a grey area. Discuss.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
Once the ball has been stopped it shouldn't be promoted. Simple as that. There is nothing grey about it.
The rule has been fine for 100+ years.

Changing it will create grey areas. Ref call held, next thing the ball is over the line. Onfield ref to video ref "I have a no try, can you check if he promoted the ball after I called held",
Video ref "Yeah no worries, I'll just go to snicko"

You should be rewarded for taking a tackle and being depserate and strong enough to keep the ball off the ground and keep it progressing toward the line.
 
No try. if your not strong enough to get over the line. Why the reward. Leave the rule as it is. Plenty of other areas of the game need more attention than this black and white ruling.
 
I think if you as the defender have managed to prevent an attacking player with all the momentum from just getting to the try line when a try looks certain, you are rewarded with the no double movement rule. Theres a lot of grey areas in our game but this isnt one of them IMO. The ball hits the ground while a player has a hand on the attaching player and momentum ceases then the tackle is made.
 
@BrissieTiger67 said:
I think if you as the defender have managed to prevent an attacking player with all the momentum from just getting to the try line when a try looks certain, you are rewarded with the no double movement rule. Theres a lot of grey areas in our game but this isnt one of them IMO. The ball hits the ground while a player has a hand on the attaching player and momentum ceases then the tackle is made.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That was a great tackle and should be rewarded with a no try as a result. It was a bit deflating as a maroon man but was the correct decision and should remain so.
 
It just seems silly to me that if a player is off the ground over the line he can wrestle for a few seconds to get the ball down, or push off with his feet and over the defender to get the ball on the ground; but he can't reach out if no one is protecting the ball and he is within arms reach short.

I'm referring to instances like Smith last night. Obvious if a player tries to kick out of a tackle to promote the ball it's different. But just reaching out to score, I don't know. I'm just of the opinion if you can reach the line, why should it be no-try.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@Peaches said:
It just seems silly to me that if a player is off the ground over the line he can wrestle for a few seconds to get the ball down, or push off with his feet and over the defender to get the ball on the ground; but he can't reach out if no one is protecting the ball and he is within arms reach short.

I'm referring to instances like Smith last night. Obvious if a player tries to kick out of a tackle to promote the ball it's different. But just reaching out to score, I don't know. I'm just of the opinion if you can reach the line, why should it be no-try.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
Click to expand...

Because you're held by the defense, the very definition that a tackle is complete. Agree with the others, the rule has been fine for 100 years, probably one of the very few black and white rules left in the game that hasn't been destroyed by "interpretation."
 
I'd rather get rid of the tries where the player is tackled over the try line, momentum is ceased, then a second later rolls over and gets it down. The ref should be calling held sooner rather than letting this wrestling continue.
 
@Juro said:
I'd rather get rid of the tries where the player is tackled over the try line, momentum is ceased, then a second later rolls over and gets it down. The ref should be calling held sooner rather than letting this wrestling continue.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. There's too much interpretation with tries such as these. If you're in the in goal and can't get the ball down in the initial motion, its held up.

As for double movement, I agree with the majority. Why change a rule that is perfect the way it is?
 
@Juro said:
I'd rather get rid of the tries where the player is tackled over the try line, momentum is ceased, then a second later rolls over and gets it down. The ref should be calling held sooner rather than letting this wrestling continue.
Click to expand...

It's because of situations like this I thought of why maybe it should be looked at.

Every where else on the field the held call is called early but you can seemingly wrestle for a few seconds to put the ball down when trying to score a try. It's two different sets of rules for different parts of the field. And I don't know if it should be that way.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@Peaches said:
I for one can't understand why the game has different rules for different areas of the field. Take tonight for example. Cameron Smith's no-try was a double movement but for my viewing (and my viewing of one trying to remove that grey area in the game), that should be a try. I know the rules don't support that but if you're close enough and able to get the ball on the line, I think it should be a try.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
Click to expand...

No confusion here, not different rules. The tackle was complete, the arm carrying the ball was on the ground, the ball was even touching the ground, and the tackler still had contact, and there was no forward momentum. The ball was then promoted illegally after the tackle was complete, classic double movement.
 
i think if smith actually got up and played the ball once he hit the deck and had the tackle complete a quick play the ball would have followed and someone would have been able to burrow over from dummy half and score anyway
 
I can see where you're coming from but league is all about metres. Once the tackle is complete you can't make extra metres (or you're not supposed to) by promoting the ball. When held up the ball is already over the line it doesn't need extra distance as such, rather lateral movement/strength to get it down.

No need to change it, but i think we need a definite overhaul of the game's refereeing to avoid this wrestling crap that the game's become these days. Watched a '03 game the other day, PTB was soo quick!!
 
@happy tiger said:
Agrree with others Best rule in the game

But a related one gets my goat up , walking off the mark :brick:
Click to expand...

Hahaha. I was going to bring that up but didn't want to go off topic.
Refer don't seem to penalize

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@happy tiger said:
Agrree with others Best rule in the game

But a related one gets my goat up , walking off the mark :brick:
Click to expand...

Hahaha. I was going to bring this up but didn't want to go off topic.
The referees don't seem to penalize the markers making tackles anywhere near as much and it's because I think players were taking steps to the side to put them offside.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,355 (members: 39, guests: 1,316)
Back
Top